Compassionate Leadership

NOTE – This was in my “to be published” file.  I’m not sure where it came from but apparently I thought it good stuff…..and still do – thanks to the unnamed author.

This vision of positive leadership may have built up a caricature in your mind of a person who is self-assured, self-confident, and maybe a bit self-centered. However, I want to demolish that by emphasizing lastly that a positive leader is a caring and compassionate person. He is not self-centered but other-centered.

Speaking of pastors in particular, I’ve seen people try to lead congregations through preaching alone; leading from the pulpit. Others have tried to lead through being effective administrators; leading from the computer, you might say. Still others have tried to lead through their growing international reputation; leading a local congregation through non-local accomplishment.  And then of course there are the dictators; leading through tyrannical abuse of power.

However, none of these work long-term. A positive leader is out among his people, present with them, caring for them, and providing for them. And that’s not just when illness, bereavement, or problems arise; that would be reactive leadership. No, positive leadership means getting out in front of the problems and trials, getting to know people in the calm, not just appearing in the storm. It’s building relationships over years so that trust and credibility is present when the real difficulties do arise. The positive leader is not just waiting for trouble, he’s positively investing in lives and families over the long-term.

The Perpetuity of the Local Church

In a recent blog article church historian Carl Trueman(1) addressed the responsibility of church elders and church bodies in passing along “the gospel in a stable form from one generation to another”.  He suggests “to do that, there has to be an understanding of how any individual doctrine connects to other doctrines within the larger confessional structure”.

He cites P. T. Forsyth's (2)  two generation rule: each generation needs to reflect on what its teaching or doctrinal formulations might lead to in two generation's time. This coincides with some of my own thoughts concerning the perpetuity of the local church. Church elders and those in authority in the church should consider how their doctrinal statements and actions regarding those statements affect the next and subsequent generations.  I have in the past expressed that sentiment with concern for what the church believes and how it expresses that belief is continued in future generations.  This may only be important if what we believe today has any significance.  If it doesn’t matter what doctrines the church holds today then why would it matter in the future?

We should be cognizant of the fact that the doctrines we believe today has a connection to what was believed in the past and how we act accordingly and transmit that belief is essential if we are to maintain a connection with future generations.  I don’t pretend to have all the answers but to allow what we believe today to be sacrificed to a lack of planning for future generations will likely ensure that our principles and our doctrine will die with us.  This is why we should be very sure the foundational teaching of the local church is biblically, and in some sense historically, sound and that it is being transmitted effectively through the teaching and preaching of the church.

If the gospel is unclear as expressed in our doctrine or is in some sense halt between two opinions then our legacy will die with us – as perhaps it should.

(1)   Carl Trueman is a Christian theologian and church historian. He is Professor of Historical Theology and Church History and holds the Paul Woolley Chair of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary. He contributes to the Reformation21 blogsite.

(2)  Peter Taylor Forsyth, also known as P. T. Forsyth, (1848-1921) was a Scottish theologian. Forsyth studied at the University of Aberdeen and then in Göttingen (under Albrecht Ritschl). He was ordained into the Congregational ministry and served churches as pastor at Bradford, Manchester, Leicester and Cambridge, before becoming Principal of Hackney College, London (later subsumed into the University of London) in 1901. ( From Wikipedia 2013)

 

If I Were the Devil.....

If I were the Devil . . . I mean, if I were the Prince of Darkness, I would of course, want to engulf the whole earth in darkness. I would have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree, so I should set about however necessary to take over the United States. I would begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.” “Do as you please.”   To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”.  In the ears of the young marrieds, I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be extreme in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct. And the old, I would teach to pray. I would teach them to say after me: “Our Father, which art in Washington” . .

If I were the devil, I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull an uninteresting. I’d threaten T.V. with dirtier movies and vice versa. And then, if I were the devil, I’d get organized. I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing and less work, because idle hands usually work for me. I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. And I’d tranquilize the rest with pills. If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects but neglect to discipline emotions . . . let those run wild. I would designate an athiest to front for me before the highest courts in the land and I would get preachers to say “she’s right.” With flattery and promises of power, I could get the courts to rule what I construe as against God and in favor of pornography, and  thus, I would evict God from the courthouse, and then from the school house, and then from the houses of Congress and then, in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion, and I would deify science because that way men would become smart enough to create super weapons but not wise enough to control them.

If I were Satan, I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg, and the symbol of Christmas, a bottle. If  I were the devil, I would take from those who have and I would give to those who wanted, until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. And then, my police state would force everybody back to work. Then, I could separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines, and objectors in slave camps. In other words, if I were Satan, I’d just keep on doing what he’s doing.

Paul Harvey, Good Day.

This speech was broadcast by legendary ABC Radio commentator Paul Harvey on  April 3, 1965.

Commentary on Perfecting Holiness

“Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”

II Corinthians 7:1

Introduction:

1. Jesus Christ has appointed me to be your servant – to perfect you now and prepare you for His coming.

2. In a time like this – our nation suffering terrorist attacks by profane antichrists and a Bible consideration of Islam upon us – we must be sure the holiness of our own lives exceeds our passion and our rhetoric.

3. How do we read the Word of God? More fervently than Muslims read the Quran? As if every word of God is pure? As a message from the great and dreadful God more sure than His voice from heaven? With eager expectation for whatever God might command us? With great love to please Christ more?

 

I. The TEXT – should be analyzed word by word, for it contains a beautiful conclusion for us.

A. Having, by virtue of its present tense, teaches these promises are in our possession now.

B. Therefore indicates a conclusion is being made from the things just previously written.

C. These points out a specific plurality of items previously described for our consideration.

D. Promises are commitments made by God to us, and He cannot lie or repent! What glory it is for saints to have offers, commitments, and promises from the great God!

E. Dearly is an adjective explaining the degree of something in the immediate context.

F. Beloved is our position before God as the objects of His everlasting and powerful love.

G. Let states a choice and decision we should make in response to what has been offered.

H. Us is a pronoun for focus on ourselves rather than others within or outside our church.

I. Cleanse is the verb of our verse, which is to wash thoroughly to make completely clean. Cleansing requires examining everywhere, washing everywhere, and being thorough. Soul cleansing needs examination, repentance, repudiation, restitution, and reformation.

J. Ourselves is another pronoun requiring self-cleansing rather than other-condemning. It is our nature to seek cleansing of others’ motes while we are blinded with beams. Our passion and rhetoric can go ballistic about others’ failures, while we miss our own.

K. From is a preposition indicating that we are getting rid of things rather than obtaining things. Cleansing is getting rid of dirt, so we must deny ourselves and give up sins.

L. All is used here as an adjective – despised adjective – to condemn any partial cleansing to save our favorite sins. We cannot hold on to any idol in our heart and truly be clean.

M. Filthiness is a noun describing any sin that stains, blemishes, or soils our Christian life.

N. Of the are a preposition and article showing where filth may be found in our cleansing.

O. Flesh is a noun referring to our outer person – our bodies and their appetites, which have lusts and sins galore. Our bodies crave things, which our minds must overrule.

P. And will not let us escape by cleansing merely our outward conduct like the Pharisees.

Q. Spirit is a noun referring to our inner person, where we have thoughts, desires, and fantasies that are sinful. The Lord is looking for a poor, contrite, and pure spirit.

R. Perfecting further modifies our cleansing and sets the standard for the degree of holiness we must achieve. Measuring ourselves among ourselves is not clean enough.

S. Holiness is being without sin as measured by the Holy God, for He is holy and requires our holiness. Holiness is the absence of absolutely anything that displeases our Lord.

T. In the is another preposition-article combination giving further instruction as to our motivation in this cleansing effort. Paul began with promises, but now he uses fear.

U. Fear of is consciousness of God that dreads His displeasure and craves His approval.

V. God is to be the object of our fear and dread, rather than the fear of peers, loss, or pain.

This is an excerpt from the article "Perfecting Holiness" at www.letgodbetrue.com

Confusing Equality With Sameness...

…blog after blog I read the same thing: a call for women to embrace a radical life for God.  Awesome.  Except that blog after blog seems to define that radical life as pursuing a woman’s right to the highest level of leadership in the Church.

And it makes me wonder: is there a place for me? An emotional and messy girl who feels all the tension and passion that I hear in the voices of my generation.  But at the same time, a girl who believes desperately that God alone is God and that He holds out to us an absolute truth that is not negotiable.

….it seems like there are only two options ahead of women: either you are passionate and radical and fight for a world without lines and distinction or you are biblically conservative, speak in Scripture and resign yourself to an irrelevant life.

I think we can be a part of a passionate movement of relevant and radical women, who talk about real things and don’t pretend to have it all together.  And we can be women who are willing to draw hard lines where Scripture draws them.  We can be women who aren’t afraid of biblical words like submission or sovereignty or inerrancy.  We can be women who don’t apologize for what Scripture says, even if it is offensive and annoying; even if it gets in the way of our ambition….

….there is something more important at stake in this conversation than the practical implications on our career paths or our earthly marriages….What’s at stake is the character of God and the source of our authority.

If we think that equality is about having the same access to visible leadership, what does that testify about our God?  The Father asks the Son and the Spirit to submit to Him.  Do we need to pull the Spirit aside and encourage Him to be more ambitious; to stand up for Himself more and not be ‘just a helper’?  Do we need to counsel Jesus that He has as much right to be the one ordaining the Cross as the one hanging on it?  Who decided who was going to be the ‘suffering servant’ anyway?  Did they draw straws?

Here’s the deal: Father, Son and Spirit have different roles and they are still equal.  Their worth is not defined by their tasks.  It’s our worldview – not God’s – that assigns value based on role.  As long as we find our worth in our to-do list, we will confuse equality and sameness.

Excerpts from "thoughts from fab"

Read the complete article HERE